Tag Archives: Jim Jordan

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-4th) is on the shadow budget group that suggests cuts in the budget and it seems he wants to cut social security and medicare. Like many cheap labor conservatives his cutting didn’t include a Marine vehicle being built in his district. He would rather hurt the elderly and disabled.

“I believe the American people are ready for the tough measures that have to be implemented to put the country on the right path,” Jordan said. “There are sacrifices that are going to have to be made by everyone. The American people get it. The most-important question is, will the political class display the same kind of courage that the American people have displayed.”

To Jordan, this year’s budget battle is only the beginning. He points out that the current temporary spending measures deal only with what is known as discretionary spending – the 12 percent of the budget that finances the annual operations of the government. He is talking of eventually taking on the real cause of the deficit: the entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

“The discretionary side is a down payment or a first step,” Jordan said. “It’s not going to solve the problem. Everything else has to be looked at, including how to save and reform Social Security and Medicare. The speaker has been clear that will be part of budget. We couldn’t agree more.”

Republicans like Jordan talk out of their ass especially when it comes to specific cuts. From the same article mentioned at the start, it noted:

As much as Jordan wants to reduce spending, he does have his exceptions. When the Obama administration wanted to cut millions of dollars for a Marine vehicle built in Jordan’s district, the conservative Republican fought to save the money.

Yep he wants to kick Grandma to the curb but don’t mess with his pet project that benefits his district. The fact is that the elderly, disabled, and poor have taken the brunt of the bad economic times we live in. It is time for the corporate world to pay their fair share.

Iwas checking out the Toledo Blade today and stumbled onto an article talking about the trouble caused by consolidating the US Postal Service’s Lima sorting center with the Toledo operation. The article quoted Congressman Jim Jordan who represents the district that was served by the Lima center. Unfortunately he, like many Americans, falsely believe the postal service is supported by direct tax payer dollars.

“When it comes to government consolidation, streamlining, and saving money, we’re all for it. In fact, we’ve been one of the loudest voices in Washington for finding ways to save federal money,” said Ray Yonkura, Mr. Jordan’s chief-of-staff.

But when the congressman’s office began getting flooded with calls from constituents about erratic mail delivery after the consolidation, he stepped in. Mr. Jordan asked the Office of Inspector General to review the consolidation to reveal what went wrong, whether the hundreds of complaints his office received were legitimate, and what could be done to fix things.

Congress does have oversight of the postal service but it hasn’t been supported by tax dollars since 1970.

The Modern Postal Service: Agency or Business?

Until adoption of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, the U.S. Postal Service functioned as a regular, tax-supported, agency of the federal government.

According to the laws under which it now operates, the U.S. Postal Service is a semi-independent federal agency, mandated to be revenue-neutral. That is, it is supposed to break even, not make a profit.

In 1982, U.S. postage stamps became “postal products,” rather than a form of taxation. Since then, The bulk of the cost of operating the postal system has been paid for by customers through the sale of “postal products” and services rather than taxes.

Rep Jim Jordan (R-Urbana) who for years has talked about cutting the Federal budget, complained about the spending of the current Congress, promised to cut spending and not raise taxes and was praised by a district newspaper for his promise to cut the budget, turned down an appointment to the powerful House Appropriations committee. Why would a committed budget cutter turn down a place on THE committee that writes the budget?

In a glowing editorial giving Jordan its endorsement, The Findlay (OH) Courier noted:

Jordan believes the Obama administration needs to get a handle on spending, and cut taxes, not raise them, if the country is going to fully recover from the recession.

As a member of the Budget, Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform committees, Jordan is positioned to push for many of the changes that the majority of voters in this district favor.

Jordan proposes reducing “discretionary spending,” which includes items outside Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense. He proposes reducing the payroll tax by half for one year, and reducing corporate taxes. He wants to eliminate capital gains taxes and the estate tax.

He believes unspent money from the federal government’s $700 billion bailout of banks in the 2008 financial crisis should be used for deficit reduction.

Published on October 5th 2010 on Section A page 04 Findlay (OH) Courier

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) was asked to be an appropriator and said thanks, but no thanks. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a tea party favorite, turned down a shot at Appropriations, which controls all discretionary spending. So did conservatives like Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), an ambitious newcomer who will lead the influential Republican Study Committee.

So why would Jim Jordan turn down a committee assignment that would not only fit in his campaign promises for the past couple of years but would also bring him some prestige?

He doesn’t want to have blood on his hands. The GOP has made no secret they plan on making wide spread cuts to everything except defense and giving tax breaks to the wealthy while raising taxes on the middle class.

“Anybody who’s a Republican right now, come June, is going to be accused of hating seniors, hating education, hating children, hating clean air and probably hating the military and farmers, too,” said Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a fiscal conservative who is lobbying to become chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. “So much of the work is going to be appropriations related. There’s going to be a lot of tough votes. So some people may want to shy away from the committee. I understand it.”

Exactly. Jordan doesn’t want more proof that he hates seniors, education, the unemployed, veterans, and the other groups he voted against during the current congress.

*Update*

The Courier reported on Friday 11/19 that Jordan’s staff says the Politico report was wrong that he never had a formal offer to join the appropriations committee. However they quote his spokesperson Meghan Snyder saying that he would turn it down if it was offered. He wants to be on a special group that will make the decisions on what to cut that will then be vetted in the committee so he can do his damage more in the shadows than if he was on the committee out in the open.

But Jordan’s press secretary, Meghan Snyder, said Thursday he never was offered a seat on the powerful committee.

“There’s a lot of talk about it. He never got a formal call,” Snyder said.

Even if he did, Jordan would not accept an offer for the committee, she said.

Jordan’s focus is becoming chairman of the Republican Study Committee, she said. The group of 116 House Republicans seeks to advance a conservative social and economic agenda. He could find out this week if he got the chairmanship.

“He’s interested in being the conscience of conservatives,” Snyder said.

Jordan is not the only House member to campaign for spending cuts and then appear indifferent about the Appropriations Committee. A scarcity of Republicans wanting to be on the Appropriations Committee was the focus of the Politico article. Campaigning for reduced government spending made better politics than cutting spending will be.

Jordan: Not asked, but not interested By Lou Wilin published 11/19/2010 Findlay (OH) Courier

An article written by Findlay Courier reporter Joy Brown about Rep Jim Jordan’s (R-Urbana) concern about the economy and jobs during the current health care reform debate is typical of the out of touch Republican party. Not only does it show Jordan’s misplaced priorites but the article also lacked any balance to the untrue GOP talking points included.

During a conference call, Jordan, R-Urbana, said legislators are too fixated on “a government takeover of health care when the focus should be on growing the economy and creating jobs.

“I think the one thing that’s hurting our ability to come out of this recession is that business owners are very nervous about what may be coming next in Washington,” said Jordan. Potential legislation could “make it tougher, more costly to do business. So instead of bringing back (laid off) workers, they’re holding off with that. That’s what’s contributing to the lack of growth that we would like to see in this economy,” he said.

Also on Thursday, representatives were debating a provision in the revised bill to restrict federal funding to pay for abortions.

“Of great concern to me is the idea of federal dollars being used to take the life of unborn children,” said Jordan.

Republicans should be as concerned for the living as they are for the unborn.

I was disappointed that this article lacked any comments or information about the actual reform bill before congress now instead of the usual Republican talking points. Where was the balance?

It just amazes me that in the 21st century someone like Mr. Jordan would politicize health care and show a lack of respect for basic human dignity. I don’t seem to recall a concern for the budget or taxes when spending obscene sums on the military or bailing out the banks who made bad decisions.

How a member of Congress would say there is going to be “government run” health care when that isn’t even true and even if true we already have some programs like Medicare and Veterans health care that are, so any additional programs would NOT be a totally foreign concept. Nothing in the current plan says people have to give up their private insurance.

Why is it that we seem to be the ONLY country which hasn’t solved this issue? Why is it that with a private “for profit” system that spends the most per person and costs the most per person we don’t have the top health care system – we rank 37th – lower than Costa Rica. When will people be outraged because approximately 40,000 people die each year because they either don’t have insurance or can’t afford medical care to begin with.

Health care is one of THE biggest expenses for businesses today and true reform as noted in the current reform package is a long time in coming and will lead to those businesses finally seeing a lowering of their health care expenses for the first time ever. That would lead to more opportunities to grow their businesses which could in fact lead to more jobs.

Doing nothing to reform the health care system is a ticking time bomb that WILL be worse than a terrorist attack.

My one major complaint about American style capitalism or a better term would be corporatism, is the need for short term gain at the expense of the future. Corporations and their lackeys in the Congress seem to bend over backward to protect profits but ignore the consequences of that short sightedness. Take for example the comments made by Rep Jim Jordan (R-OH4) and Marathon Petroleum Co. President Gary Heminger on Thursday to the Findlay Courier concerning the proposed carbon cap and trade program.

The hardship to the 4th District would be compounded by its large number of manufacturers, whose costs would climb. The Democrats’ plan would be a “job killer,” Jordan said.

“It takes a lot of energy to manufacture things,” he said. “We are a huge manufacturing district.”

A study by The Heritage Foundation, a public policy research institute, said the 4th Congressional District would be the fourth hardest hit in the nation.

Marathon employees also are vulnerable, Heminger said.

“I talk to our employees (and tell them) … ‘What this does, is, this is going to eliminate your job. It is not just an extra 50 cents, a dollar, whatever per gallon at the pump, and whatever the increment is in your electricity bill, or your natural gas bill,'” Heminger said. “‘But it is going to eliminate one of the largest industries in the country.'”

Yes, a carbon cap and trade program would force a change in how we do business. The change though is for a future long term benefit by leveling the playing field. The one obstacle to a clean energy economy is the cost. A cap and trade program would remove that obstacle.

Leveling the playing field by forcing fossil-fuel prices to reflect their true cost will spur a wave of clean-energy investment: research and development in new technologies, new factories to produce solar panels and wind turbines, and energy-efficiency retrofits of commercial and residential real estate. That means jobs, and lots of them. While some businesses that rely on dirty energy will be hurt, many others will thrive in the clean-energy economy.

Most carbon cap plans are set up to fail because they reward energy companies with permit giveaways and fail to compensate consumers for increased electricity bills. One such proposal hit the Senate floor last year, only to collapse under the weight of too much spending and not enough protection for the middle class. Obama’s cap-and-refund plan avoids these mistakes.

A clean energy economy would help reduce climate change, improve the health of the population, add to our national security by removing our dependence on foreign oil, and bring about greater technology investment.

We may have to buy electric cars that cost $40,000 but the technology is still pretty new. Heminger doesn’t seem to be aware of Moore’s law in the computer industry and that would happen in the electric car industry as we move forward. Five or six years ago I had to spend about $20 for a compact florescent light bulb, now you can buy them for less than $10. When consumer VCRs came on the market you had to spend thousands of dollars now you can buy one for less than $20 – if you can find one.

We must change our energy policy and get rid of the dirty fuel. I would much rather do it now while the transition costs are relatively low then be forced to do it through some major crisis like the melting of the ice caps or cut off of foreign oil when it will cost us all much more.